Reviews

This is a really great view of the problems with gun ownership in the USA. Moore attacks the issues surrounding the problems that people have with guns from the perspective of someone who obviously advocates gun control. The movie is actually less about the high school shootings than it is about the bigger picture of the problem in the USA. The only reason that it did not get a higher rating is because of the ending: WARNING--HERE THERE BE SPOILERS: When he has Charlton Heston basically admitting his racist tendencies and ignorance of problems in mainstream America, it is ingenious. He should let Heston just hang himself right there. But instead, he persistently starts to harass the old man with a picture of a young girl who was shot and ends up over blowing his point. He could have just shown Heston the picture, explained his point of view, and when Heston walked away his point would have been made. Instead, he badgered him (big surprise!). All in all a great film, but with nuances of the pain in the rear end that Moore prides himself on being that just take you out of it.

I really liked "Bowling for Columbine," but this film starts out badly and just gets worse with the unfounded logic of Moore's emotionalism. For example, before the title even comes up, he asserts that the claim by Bush's cousin at Fox News that Bush won the presidency caused the other networks to automatically change their calling of the election for Gore (why would that happen? it makes no sense...), and then asserts that this somehow cemented the election for Bush (how could that possibly happen?). It goes on down hill from there...

Whereas some of Moore's films really poignantly detail the matter that he is working with, this flops because it is basically a film about blaming and accusing George Bush for everything and going beyond the boundaries of logic to do it. I am not a big fan of Bush, but Moore's claims just took me right out of the film. I am sure that if you hate George Bush like so many do you will love the film, but if you are independently minded (and surely if for some reason you actually like Bush) you will not appreciate the film.

I did. It was a wonderful message, and the directing was terrific, too. I particularly applaud the use of color in this film and would use it as an exemplar in a film appreciation class for that purpose. But this film moves way too slowly, and the reasons are the action sequences and the lack of story.

The fight scenes are too artificial. As you may guess, I was also not thrilled with "Crouching Tiger" and if I am missing anything, perhaps it is the reason for a fascination with fantasy during such scenes that utterly takes you out of the moment. I don't want to see people mystically defying gravity and doing mid-air stunts for 5 minutes. A little more Bruce Lee and a little less Disney would be nice. It also needed more storyline and less "action" although the latter is questionable as it was about as believable as a James Bond film.

More exposition and more realistic martial artistry would have made this film as good as everyone else is saying it is.

This kid's show is geared toward stimulating the senses while teaching very basic scientific principles to young children. I think it does a nice job as the music is very upbeat and techno, and unlike in so many other children's shows, it is easily tolerable and even enjoyable by the adults.

I also like the fact that this show addresses scientific principles, though simply, better than other children's shows that I have seen. Most of them hit you over the head with it, but "Tiny Planets" takes a fresh approach of having two friendly little aliens solving problems in every episode by learning about science. Examples of the lessons consist of story lines that detail changing of the seasons, how a rainbow is formed, how sound waves travel or even the importance of following a recipe (or formula) precisely to get to a desired outcome.

While there are some "ludicrous" parts of the show (as another reviewer pointed out), it is a kid's show and not meant to be presented as reality (first clue: they are little aliens in outer space flying around on a spring-controlled couch). It is computer-animation and it does stretch reality in the presentation as well as the story lines. However, my two-year-old daughter loves the show and actually tells other people what she has learned from it. And I can tolerate watching this show with her much better than many other ones that kids like to watch!

The only problem I have with the show is that the creatures that are native to the tiny planets are called "Flockers," and when a two-year old tries to say that, it can come out pretty shockingly (like a very nasty curse word). However, we just worked with her on her diction and eventually she got it very clearly. But the first time she was telling her grandparents about the flockers they were in shock for a moment or two.

All in all I highly recommend "Tiny Planets" for kids of all ages!

I have read the catalog of comments here about how John Ritter's career is over, how the acting on this show is not worthy of an Emmy, and how the humor is trite, etc...

Give it up, people. There is an audience for this show, and the one that follows it ("According to Jim"). If it is not for you, then don't waste your time here. YOU are the one with the problem if you came back to watch "Three's Company" twenty-five years after. Criticizing John Ritter's appearance as so many have (give the guy a break--he looks great for his age!) shows where you mind is. Go watch "That 70's Show" if you are still stuck there.

This show was not created to win awards or to serve as a true lesson in parenting. It is funny, fluffy, and the story lines are simple and cute. I can watch it with my kids, and there is always a clever exchange or two to remember from each episode. As for the acting, it is adequate. If anything, Ritter upstages the others at points, but with the nature of the writing, the kids work as a great foil without making him look too much like the "dumb dad." Katey Segal has enough talent to pull off the supporting role here, and I would actually like to see more shows surrounding her. While the story lines are a tad pedestrian at the moment, given a chance to bloom, I can see this show getting better and better.

And by the way, whoever wrote that the daughters are ugly are just plain mean and WRONG. They are both very attractive, and their acting is not exaggerated or a caricature. If people would just quit trying to be mean about this show they could see that it simply is what it is... If it is not your cup of tea, watch something else!

Well, I was kind of looking forward to this, as I am a huge fan of "South Park," but I have to say...

Oh my gosh was this show AWFUL--and don't even tell me that "I don't get it." Believe me, I see what these guys tried to do here and I just hope that Comedy Central gets rid of this disaster soon. It is clearly not a funny show and the parody aspect got tired before the first commercial break. I guess they had to go the parody route because picking on "W" already isn't really justified. If these guys had thought about it seriously, Clinton would have made a much funnier subject for a sitcom. He and Hillary are prime material, unlike the Bushes.

And I am sorry--but the talking fetus in the first episode was just gross and sophomoric. That's okay. This show won't last through the first trimester.

Don't miss this one!

The script alone would have made this fantastic (I can't remember another film that had as many outstanding lines that naturally flowed within the context of the action), but the acting and direction of the film are also superior. It is hilarious, and it touches you at the same time.

And by the way, why was Frances McDormand NOT nominated for Best Supporting Actress?

The person that described this movie as "a mess" was right on. But besides the fact that Gilliam's directing was nightmarish, the story drones on and on and wastes a lot of good talent along the way. The movie is likely interesting to Python fans who never grew up, or maybe to someone who has recently discovered that they like the effects of peyote but can't seem to find any. It is one of those films that you will keep watching because you know there are some big stars, but you soon realize that you have wasted a couple hours of your life on sophomoric humor and an inane plot. Watch this movie if you are still annoying the crap out of people with your constant repetition of lines from "The Holy Grail," but otherwise save yourself some pain.

To quote Ken Tucker of Britannica:

"Say it three times fast and you'll be hooked: SpongeBob SquarePants! It's the summer's most felicitously titled new cartoon-not-for-kids-only. Our hero is indeed a sponge rectangle--an innocent adventurer, a sort of porous Candide--dressed in pants, living under the sea in a two-bedroom pineapple (yep, you read that right). 'SpongeBob is like a child, optimistic and energetic,' says creator-exec producer Steve Hillenburg. 'But I think adults will like him because we throw him into surreal situations.' Hillenburg combined his background as a marine biologist with his hobby as a surfer to dream up SpongeBob's underwater fantasy-land, which includes employment at the Krusty Krab, a fast-food restaurant. 'Adults will want to check out SpongeBob's girlfriend, Sandy Cheeks, the surfer squirrel--she's pretty cool too,' says Hillenburg."

I don't know what the previous reviewer has in mind in trying to search for the sexual overtones in this cartoon, but please give the show a chance before reading such tripe. This is a very fun cartoon, period. It makes me sick to think that someone would search for something sexual or morbid here. This is a brilliant animated series fit for kids and adults that poignantly blends light-hearted story lines and delightful scenarios with creative animation. It is not preachy, and it doesn't pretend to be educational. It is not violent or flashy. It is simply animated entertainment at its best. It is FUNNY. It is ADDICTIVE. And it has a great opening song, too.

Spongebob himself is very annoying, but is also so good-hearted that you root for him every time. His unintelligent friend Patrick makes the show--he is an excellent sidekick who often upstages the star. The other characters all have unique personalities and contributions to the show that keep you coming back for more. I hope this show lasts for a long time, and I hope the reruns last forever.

If you are expecting a masterpiece, the title of this one tells you to look elsewhere. But if you are looking for some good, clean, fun with an unbelievable plot, look no further. The willing suspension of disbelief is important if you want to enjoy this film, but afterall, which of us doesn't have a little boy in us that still wants to be a professional football player someday? This film gives us the chance to see it happening to a deserving guy--a garbageman, nonetheless. The movie also has a lot of fun moments, like when the kicker gets to room with the biggest lineman on the team. And while it is not Aesop fare, there is a lesson to be learned here, too--that putting our dreams and opportunities in front of all else that is dear to us can be costly. If you like movies about football, this one is a cute story that is reminiscent of Disney's 1976 film "Gus" about a field-goal kicking mule. This just brings the story into a more human perspective. The kids will love it.

If you are into crude, sophomoric jokes and think that penis-centered humor is your bag, this movie is for you. The music was great, as were the costumes. Beyond that, I just don't see what all the hype was about. Maybe I am just getting prudish in my late 20's...

First, I concur completely with the other review listed here. Beyond that, let me say this movie is an insult to college debate. As a former debator, coach, and director of debate, let me just say that our activities are nothing like these. Debators work hard, practice hard, and win through argumentation, strong evidence, and effective persuasion. Not through hoke, schmaltz, and a total lack of ethics. This just had to be said, as I am tired of people saying, "Oh, I know what college debate is like--I saw 'Listen To Me' a few years ago." Uh, no, you don't. Also, the plot is sophomoric, predictable, and the acting is terrible. This movie's only value is as a joke. A sad one, and only when you have an incredible amount of time to waste. P.S.--the Supreme Court has no interest in hearing college debates, and hackneyed, worn-out topics like "abortion" were debated back in the mid 1970's. Real debators are academicians, and they deal with topics that are relevant and timely. Aw, need I go on? This movie was horrible, and a horrific representation of a worthwhile activity. Please, if you see it, don't insult anyone associated with college debate by saying you know anything about what they do.

This film was terrible. The storyline has an interesting basis involving an underwater nuclear plant in the near future, which could have led to myriad possibilities for disaster that would put a scare into the audience. So which direction does it take? An ancient sea monster attacks, and by the time it does, you wish it would kill every unlikeable character in the film. The special effects in this movie are terrible, and the acting is worse (led by Greg Evigan of "BJ and the Bear" and "My 2 Dads" fame). I angrily walked out on this stinker when I initially paid to see it, but later on television I watched the ending in a moment of terrible boredom. That was a mistake--the only thing worse than the rest of the film was the unpredictably predictable ending where Evigan survives a deep underwater battle with the monster and surfaces alive, totally ignoring scientific principles like a necessity for air or the existence of water pressure. Don't watch this film unless you are a masochist.

This movie had potential in its storyline. Very enthralling basis about a witch who is summoned to the twentieth-century and wreaks havoc upon the descendent of the man who is her lover and persecutor centuries before. While this plot is fascinating, the film itself flounders with typical and hackneyed evil spells and tricks used by the witch, which make the true fiber of the story into a peripheral byline until the very end. I saw this movie in the early eighties and the fact that I can remember so much about the storyline is a testament to what this movie could have been. However, it is a big disappointment and you will kick yourself for having wasted your time to watch it.

When one thinks of Meryl Streep, he or she gets images of great performances in films like "Kramer vs. Kramer", "The Deer Hunter" or "Sophie's Choice". The most interesting thing about "She-Devil" is that ironically, just as it introduces some humility into her character Mary Fisher's life, Meryl Streep is brought down to the gutter just for associating with this stinker. I hope they paid her a fortune. Don't get me wrong--there were moments where I laughed (such as when the prize poodle plays its last game of fetch!), but this was a low-rate film with a script that had unbelievable holes big enough to drive a Mack truck right on through. Normally in a silly comedy that is just fine, but these were so glaring that common sense did not allow me to enjoy the movie (and the blue-screen of the house blowing up while Rosanne walks away is just terrible!). For example, why would Bob Patchett have knocked up Roseanne's hideous character to begin with? And if the She-Devil really loved her kids would she really just leave them with her husband and his mistress for a few months? The only reason this movie got higher than a 2 or 3 was due to Meryl's portrayal of the slutty, sexy main character played off against Roseanne's convincing act(?) as a disgusting person (the mole on her mustached face is truly gross). Also, the woman who plays Mary Fisher's mom is a hoot. The ending of this movie was terrible with no real resolution other than the fact that the She-Devil got even by completing a demolition list on her ex-husband. I guess we are to believe that she has transcended into a likeable, attractive, confident woman, but in fact she is just a crafty witch who used her friend's money to get even with her cheating husband. I recommend this movie if you are really, really bored and can find absolutely nothing else to do. Otherwise, unless you are a Meryl Streep fan (who is really very sexy in a twisted sort of way throughout this film) who wants to see her doing something different, don't waste your time.

One must expect that the Saturday Night Live spin-off films are going to be a bit ridiculous. However, this one was incredibly awful with an anorexic plot, adolescent humor, and a script that makes one question whether or not improvisation would have been better. I loved Will Ferrel and Chris Katan when they played these two loser club-hoppers on the show, so I thought the movie might be funny, too. Not only is it humorless, it uses gratuitous, embarrassing sexual innuendo which makes one question how it got a PG-13 rating--but then again, who over the age of 13 could stand to sit through the whole thing? The best part about this movie is that it was less than an hour-and-a-half long. This film may just be enough to destroy any future hopes for its "stars" which is a real shame.